Fury X vs 980 TI - Reality

After FuryX's launch I don't believe much coming out of AMD. I get the feeling they are covering up quite a bit.
 
After FuryX's launch I don't believe much coming out of AMD. I get the feeling they are covering up quite a bit.

I'm sure your opinion is much more authoritative than information from the people that created the technology.

Please explain why Titan / 980 TI's are having random stuttering issues in GTA V.
 
Let's look at the past. The Radeon 4870 was launched and it had the distinction of using the then brand spanking new GDDR5. Surprisingly this latest card only retailed for $300 and kept up with an the $450 GTX260, and even took on the over twice as expensive $650 GTX280!

Your memory might be foggy. The 260 and 4870 traded blows. The 260's price was dropped to $250 as a result. I paid that much and got a 260 216. One of the first ones as EVGA did not even switch the sticker on it. The 216 pushed it above the 4870, so AMD came out with the 4890. It certainly was a good thing though. Competitive card that lowered prices for all.
 
I'm sure your opinion is much more authoritative than information from the people that created the technology.

Please explain why Titan / 980 TI's are having random stuttering issues in GTA V.

All I can say is mild stutters beside, they play far better than AMD. I hope AMD launches something better in the future that not only has good hardware with sufficient VRAM but better drivers too.

But you never answered any of my questions.

Are you even educated enough to think properly or converse?
 
Now I watched that video he just deflected from the question and started saying HBM blablabla
 
All I can say is mild stutters beside, they play far better than AMD. I hope AMD launches something better in the future that not only has good hardware with sufficient VRAM but better drivers too.

But you never answered any of my questions.

Are you even educated enough to think properly or converse?

You never asked any questions.

All you've done is say that the 4GB is the problem and never answered why Titan and 980 TI also randomly stutter even though they have 6/12GB of ram.

You asked me how to explain how AMD expects 4GB to work and I posted a link from AMD explaining it.

Now when are you going to answer my questions and explain why 980 TI / Titan also have issues as I showed from the issues on their forums.
 
I'm sure your opinion is much more authoritative than information from the people that created the technology.

Please explain why Titan / 980 TI's are having random stuttering issues in GTA V.

I get zero stuttering and will post a video of it tomorrow.
 
Why would that be considered gimping anything? Sorry, I don't see this as some kind of nefarious plot.

The cards have not reached legacy status, hell 780 Ti is not even old and yet its now barely keeping up with AMD card it used to soundly beat. Its probably not active gimping (which would be even illegal i think) but its certainly passive one, with only one reason that i can think of. Which is trying to move people on to Maxwell earlier than usual (people tended to jump card generations going to every second one when upgrading).

Spin it however you want but if intentional its certainly a immoral way to support your product in my eyes. Not illegal, just immoral.
 
You never asked any questions.

All you've done is say that the 4GB is the problem and never answered why Titan and 980 TI also randomly stutter even though they have 6/12GB of ram.

You asked me how to explain how AMD expects 4GB to work and I posted a link from AMD explaining it.

Now when are you going to answer my questions and explain why 980 TI / Titan also have issues as I showed from the issues on their forums.

Excuses and more excuses is all AMD fan boys can do. Nothing more nothing less.

Atleast I wass honest and admitted there is slight stuttering but no way as bad as shown in the youtube video with the FuryX. That was jackshit of a performance with a huge slow down.

Keep deflecting and dreaming!
 
Then why isn't there an air-cooled Fury X on the market? There are plenty of air-cooled 980 Ti's, so they obviously don't need water... but not a single air-cooled Fury X.

I'd tend to agree. The most logical reason why the air-cooled model is delayed is they want the process to mature a bit first so they can bin cooler-running chips for the air-cooled model so it doesn't throttle itself too much during gaming.

The 4GB VRAM tied with the $650 pricetag, the missing features (e.g., HDMI 2.0), and the waterblock (I'd much prefer normal air cooling) are enough to stop me from considering it despite having owned AMD cards for most of the past decade due to their consistent quality, stability in gaming, and overall bang-for-the-buck pricing. This new lineup from AMD is disappointing.

That said, if I'm paying $650 I better not experience any stuttering in any game from the GPU, whether AMD or NVidia. Every time I've been tempted to pick up an NVidia card there's always been enough bugs or issues with drivers or something else to keep me from doing it. Came really close to picking up a GTX 970 a few months ago but it was literally the same week the 3.5GB VRAM drama hit. Kind of glad I waited on that one, since they've come down a bunch in price now and there are more alternatives available, too.

I dunno, overall I'm just disappointed at the state of the consumer GPU market right now. Prices are too high and some of the cards from both manufacturers are sort of half-assed. The 980Ti is fantastic but to have to spend $650 to get what I would have expected from a $450 card a few years ago is not easy to accept. My hope is that when the air-cooled Fury drops, it performs well, it is priced well, and it will cause the 980Ti to drop into $599 territory. Because I likely wouldn't buy a Fury for more than $400 but if its appearance around $500 causes 980Ti prices to drop, that's a win for us as consumers.

If Fury X had debuted at $550 like some of us hoped, I think we'd have a real competition on our hands when cost is factored into the equation and the resulting price drops on NVidia cards would have been a welcome event.
 
Last edited:
Excuses and more excuses is all AMD fan boys can do. Nothing more nothing less.

Atleast I wass honest and admitted there is slight stuttering but no way as bad as shown in the youtube video with the FuryX. That was jackshit of a performance with a huge slow down.

Keep deflecting and dreaming!

What are you talking about? Honestly. You didn't ask any questions so what are you saying I'm deflecting? If anyone is deflecting its you, because again you've been unable to come up with an answer to why Nvidia cards are stuttering (at least you've acknowledged it). We don' t know if the people are having as bad of hitches as was posted in the Fury review, because there aren't videos just people posting about it on their forums. There are obviously issues with stuttering in GTA V that aren't RAM related.
 
I get zero stuttering and will post a video of it tomorrow.

Why? There is no point saying you aren't having issues when other people are. I don't think the issues the guy in the video was having are wide spread for Fury as its the only one that I've seen complain about it. There are lots of other people complaining about issues with Stuttering in GTA V since the last patch, using all types of hardware including Titan / 980 TIs (I posted the link multiple times).
 
It's not "about even". Around 15-20% slower at 1440p when both are OC'd to max:

Everyone keeps talking abut this mythical OC tool too. Why didn't AMD provide it for launch reviews?

Exactly. AMD (and nV) have a long history of touting post-release magic performance that's incoming "soon", features etc -- they almost never deliver, or come months and months later and/or are nerfed upon arrival.
 
Why? There is no point saying you aren't having issues when other people are. I don't think the issues the guy in the video was having are wide spread for Fury as its the only one that I've seen complain about it. There are lots of other people complaining about issues with Stuttering in GTA V since the last patch, using all types of hardware including Titan / 980 TIs (I posted the link multiple times).

You're not grasping the point dude. Did you even see the youtube clip for FuryX. Stuttering is one thing but dramatic slowdown after a stutter is NOT common.

Could it be due to shitty drivers / less VRAM. There are all sorts of possibilities. You can not rule out lack of enough VRAM. Every possible angle should be thoroughly investigated so that people don't waste 650$ on a sucky card.
 
Fury X doesn't NEED a water cooler any more than the 980 Ti Hybrid.

How can people keep repeating this nonsense over and over and over on this forum, I am convinced you are trolling.

Because, until someone releases an air-cooled Fury X, the burden is on you to prove what you're saying.

Occam's Razor.
 
When your GPU is expensive to produce but doesn't really match the competition for the same price, the easiest solution is to make it SFF and slap a cheap water-cooler on it for added value. They did it to soak up as many early adopter sales as possible. Tell me how AMD should cool a 6-inch 280W card on air...?

Who said they needed to build the card in the form factor they did?

And if you add a water cooler that jacks the price up to be identical/greater than the competition's top end offering, you're not really "adding value".

Also there's a logical fallacy in your post somewhere; just because there are no air cooled models on the market does not mean Fury X 'requires' water. Fury will be air-cooled and comes out in 3 weeks.
I'm not sure I can tolerate another 3 weeks of this forum's bullshit.

Again, Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely the true answer.

In this case, they released a card that's water cooled by default. One that doesn't have a hell of a lot of room for overclocking. Ergo, they more or less NEEDED to water cool it, whether for form-factor constraints, thermal issues, etc.

Again, until AMD releases an air-cooled version, you need to come up with some way of disproving this. Because simply going "That's not right! Because that's not right!" isn't an argument anyone's going to listen to, let alone pay any form of credence.
 
It was interesting when he said that system ram is used as part of the frame buffer for FuryX and maybe why the reviews for the card was all over the place because the review sites using systems with DDR4 showed FuryX doing a liitle better.
 
It was interesting when he said that system ram is used as part of the frame buffer for FuryX and maybe why the reviews for the card was all over the place because the review sites using systems with DDR4 showed FuryX doing a liitle better.


What about the PCI-e bus, what is the bandwidth there?
 
Who said they needed to build the card in the form factor they did?

And if you add a water cooler that jacks the price up to be identical/greater than the competition's top end offering, you're not really "adding value".



Again, Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is most likely the true answer.

In this case, they released a card that's water cooled by default. One that doesn't have a hell of a lot of room for overclocking. Ergo, they more or less NEEDED to water cool it, whether for form-factor constraints, thermal issues, etc.

Again, until AMD releases an air-cooled version, you need to come up with some way of disproving this. Because simply going "That's not right! Because that's not right!" isn't an argument anyone's going to listen to, let alone pay any form of credence.

But you and I KNOW they are releasing aircooled Furys in 3 weeks, ergo your argument is the least likely and will have to wait till the aircooled cards are released to know for sure.
 
But you and I KNOW they are releasing aircooled Furys in 3 weeks, ergo your argument is the least likely and will have to wait till the aircooled cards are released to know for sure.

Fury will be a cut down cooler running part, not exactly the same thing is it? I haven't seen an air cooled fury x announcement yet but i do think it is possible if they slap a heavy enough vapor chamber on it.
 
But you and I KNOW they are releasing aircooled Furys in 3 weeks, ergo your argument is the least likely and will have to wait till the aircooled cards are released to know for sure.

I *know* no such thing.

Until they do, I'll continue to not know.
 
Oh AMD will have an aircooled version, who wants to bet me its going to be on the same PCB or not have a massive Cooler Overhang? There is simply not enough pcb area for the cooler required.
 
It was interesting when he said that system ram is used as part of the frame buffer for FuryX and maybe why the reviews for the card was all over the place because the review sites using systems with DDR4 showed FuryX doing a liitle better.

It's not interesting, it's an excuse. All GPU's do the same thing when they run out of VRAM. They pull the assets from RAM. It's kinda like the extra 0.5gb "feature" on a 970. Companies trying to downplay deficiencies in their products. AMD is guilty of it, as is NVIDIA.
 
It's not interesting, it's an excuse. All GPU's do the same thing when they run out of VRAM. They pull the assets from RAM. It's kinda like the extra 0.5gb "feature" on a 970. Companies trying to downplay deficiencies in their products. AMD is guilty of it, as is NVIDIA.
Over the last few weeks there have been endless complaints about VRAM limitations citing benchmarks running 980's and 290X's at 4 GB solid and people say "See it's out of VRAM", now the card is running 3 GB usage and you say "It's out of VRAM because it's clearing space to thrash from system ram." It can't be BOTH!

You people just need to admit you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
 
^ yup and y'all remember this, don't you?

intel_i740_f.jpg


Intel I740 series
 
Over the last few weeks there have been endless complaints about VRAM limitations citing benchmarks running 980's and 290X's at 4 GB solid and people say "See it's out of VRAM", now the card is running 3 GB usage and you say "It's out of VRAM because it's clearing space to thrash from system ram." It can't be BOTH!

You people just need to admit you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Even if it's not a VRAM issue, it still points to piss poor drivers + possible memory management issues. Saying, "welps AMD is using HBM and it's new!" is no excuse. This is a $650 product, it should work as good or better than competing products which don't have these problems.
 
^ yup and y'all remember this, don't you?

intel_i740_f.jpg


Intel I740 series

I would love nothing more than someone vertically integrated like Intel to get back into the game. I'd pay a fee to have something fabbed in the USA.
 
I remember going to the local computer shop hole-in-the-wall and seeing boxes for video cards from Matrox, S3 Virge, Diamond, 3Dlabs, 3dfx Voodoo, Trident, Hauppauge, etc. Those were the days... the days of LAN parties, 3D acceleration being a huge deal, pixels, voxels, texels, mip mapping, and wondering if the latest Athlon or Celeron was the way to go for best bang-for-the-buck. Man, those were the days...
 
Your memory might be foggy. The 260 and 4870 traded blows. The 260's price was dropped to $250 as a result. I paid that much and got a 260 216. One of the first ones as EVGA did not even switch the sticker on it. The 216 pushed it above the 4870, so AMD came out with the 4890. It certainly was a good thing though. Competitive card that lowered prices for all.

Not foggy at all, The Radeon 4870 blew past the GTX280 in a few games.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/1gb4870_092408101853/17395.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/1gb4870_092408101853/17397.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/1gb4870_092408101853/17392.png
 
"So how exactly is the Fury X over priced?"

So since you asked, I guess I'm allowed to give an answer. A real answer. No glossing over, no bias, no BS.

There is no HDMI 2.0 .... got it? Good ... there is no DVI. Got it? Good! ... There is only 4GB of frame buffer. Got it? Good.

There is you're answer.

What would be cool is if the Fury Pro came out with 8gb of GDDR5 and HDMI 2.0 / DVI .... that would be very cool along with a $450 or $499 price point.
 
Because, until someone releases an air-cooled Fury X, the burden is on you to prove what you're saying.

Occam's Razor.

I was thinking this as well. Also, with an aircooled fury it may require some rearranging on the PCB. It'll be interesting to see mods/ future models of this card.
 
Back
Top